A nationwide group of some 8,000 men, most of them techies and engineers, have formed a "husbands' rights" movement, spearheaded by the Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF)

They claim they're being victimised, abused and framed by their wives and greedy lawyers, who use laws like the Domestic Violence Act and IPC 498A which deals with dowry harassment, to extort money, grab family property, deny them child custody etc.

The movement is active in nine cities, operates a national helpline, has published a Guide to Surviving 498A

SIFF says the high ratio of male to female suicides (64:36) is largely due to domestic cruelty against men [National Crime Records Bureau 2005].

***

On August 26 this year, International Women's Equality Day, yet another demonstration was under way at Jantar Mantar, the centre of gravity for social protest in the nation's capital. No one driving by would have spared the protesters a second glance, except that the bunch shouting slogans-- "Hai
Hai", "Down Down"-- was an incongruous one: software engineers, corporate managers, officers of the merchant navy and marketing execs. More incredible were the signs they were carrying: 'Stop Legal Terrorism. Stop Husband Suicides', and 'Protect the Elderly from the NCW', NCW being not the National Commission for Women but 'National Criminal Wives'. On Women's Equality Day, the centrestage belonged to one of the most unexpected byproducts of the women's rights movement: a movement for men's rights.

Spearheading it is Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), a front organisation,
formed in 2005, the year the Domestic Violence Act came into force for a nationwide group of some 8,000 men.
SIFF and their affiliates have a novel view of women's equality in India
-- that the feminist agenda has pushed ahead so far that men are now the
worst victims.

They view a small cluster of central legislations—including the DV Act and Section 498A of the IPC, which deals with cruelty and dowry harassment—as instruments that allow unscrupulous wives to abuse, manipulate and blackmail husbands and in-laws for money and revenge. Meanwhile, husbands battered by wives receive no protection. The Axis of Evil in this arrangement, they say, comprises Union minister for women's and child development Renuka Chowdhury, NCW chairperson Girija Vyas and Supreme Court senior advocate Indira Jaisingh. For SIFF, the laws they've pushed through and defended from criticism define every domestic squabble as an act of cruelty, and are beginning to undermine the institution of marriage in India.

"Every marital argument will get converted into legal action, and once the trust is gone, the institution of marriage will be destroyed," Sandeep Bhatia, a software engineer and a SIFF member, told Outlook. "More and more children will be raised in single-parent households. A fatherless society really is the direction we're going in."

The reality of the situation is complex. It became grossly obvious in the '70s that simply making violence against women in its many forms—rape, domestic violence, dowry harassment—illegal did not provide sufficient protection for women. Deeply lodged sexism in society, and among the police and magistrates, meant that even the most flagrant cases were dismissed. Before 498A, say women's activists, abused wives were laughed out of police stations when they went to lodge a complaint. The calls for more proactive, forceful legal protection led to the passage of laws in which many conventions of due process were set aside.

Dowry complaints became cognisable, meaning the police could make arrests without warrants, and non-bailable ones at that. The DV Act dramatically expanded the ambit of what could be called violence, who could demand protection, and what kinds of protection they should be given. The proponents argued persuasively that they were necessary to provide thorough protection against ancient social evils. Opponents say they only created new victims—husbands and in-laws—and a new social malady.

And if SIFF's members are any indication, most such victims are well-groomed, earnest, and successful. "Rickshaw-wallahs never face these cases," says SIFF's ebullient spokesman, Swarup Sarkar. "Because there's no question of getting money out of them. But when a husband is an IIT software engineer, the in-laws think—ah, I can screw him!"

But if success be the downfall of these men, it is also their saving grace. After all, who but they—the face of a modern, resurgent India—could have the temerity to claim that, in India, so much has changed that men are now subject to systematic victimisation by women? SIFF members let their appearance—well-groomed, earnest, and
successful—win half the argument for them. The fact that they are media-smart and technology-savvy (members run as many as 30
blogs) may help them win the other half. They can tack their way through arguments, sounding like lawyers. They have financial resources. The movement is active in nine cities, operates a 24-hour national helpline and has published a guide to surviving 498A.

But to actually feel sympathy for SIFF's members, you must leave their shrill protests at Jantar Mantar and drop in on their weekly support group meetings, where the men share their stories. On the lawns of Patiala House Court,
the group sit around open snack boxes, subdued, plucking at the grass. Some
women supporters are also present, mostly their mothers and sisters who are
co-accused. The men take long pulls on their cigarettes and share their
stories.

Naveen, an engineer with an MBA, is one of them. Gaunt, balding and downcast, he told Outlook how his wife abused him and his elderly mother. His wife, he says, was a volatile, raging
individual—one night, he recounts, she sent him to hospital with a black eye. When he filed for divorce, she approached the Crimes Against Women Cell. Suddenly, he found himself accused of dowry harassment, as were his mother and sister, who had never lived with them. Naveen says he had to go into hiding and pay off the police while he tried to obtain bail. In accordance with the DV Act, he and his mother were evicted from their home so his wife could live there. Then she filed for maintenance. "I'm lucky I haven't had a heart attack," he says. "I'm lucky my mother is still alive, although she's a mental wreck. And my wife is sitting in our matrimonial home, with a government job, and fighting for maintenance. That's the beauty of this law."

Then, Naveen contacted SIFF on their helpline. On their advice, he began recording the calls his wife made to his cellphone as evidence. And slowly drifted into the support group meetings.

There is no reason to think Naveen is lying. The legal community acknowledges that 498A and the DV Act are misapplied, whether by necessity or by malice. The laws have been overtly criticised by some judges in the Delhi High Court, even though women activists are quick to point out how the judges themselves have records of making chauvinistic remarks in court or penning eccentric books on the perils of marrying intellectual women. Still, the fact remains—that there are husbands and their families who have suffered the consequences of hard-hitting laws. The legal process alone is purgatory: a long, heavy drag through police stations, lawyers' meetings and courts, while their careers, reputations and finances crack around them. Parents and young siblings are charged, sometimes evicted from their home, sometimes jailed for years.

Men's rights activists, pointing to the high rate of male suicides, say these are overwhelmingly motivated by unhappy domestic lives. They cite Crime Bureau statistics to indicate that, in the age groups where most victims can be presumed married, the male-to-female suicide ratio is 64:36. Of course, women activists point to the report's contradictory conclusion: that "social and economic causes have led most of the males to commit suicide whereas emotional and personal causes have mainly driven females to end their lives".

At their weekly meet, SIFF sometimes receives husbands on the brink of taking that drastic step, and urges them back. But claiming that 30,000 Indian men are driven to suicide by wives every year, there are too many they cannot help. Sarkar, in fact, goes on to claim that even Vidarbha's farmers are committing suicides "because their wives give them no mental peace at home".

Of course, the movement is not without its share of rhetoric. While arguing against dowry laws, the original problem of dowry for Sarkar is little more than a figment of the feminist imagination, a profitable conspiracy between greedy lawyers and unscrupulous wives.

To Sarkar, the motives of the women's rights activists are clear. "Why did we oppose TADA and POTA," he asks, "but not this? Nobody in the legal community has an interest in fixing the law. This is bread and butter for the likes of Indira
Jaisingh."

With these sweeping statements and chauvinist
reactions, SIFF has fenced off the middle ground that it might have shared
with the women's activists. Many of their concerns are the same: for
instance, if only 2% of cases booked under 498A lead to convictions, it may
mean that most of the people being booked are innocent, but it also means
that most of the guilty are not being booked. What could have been a
cooperative movement to design fair laws is now a vicious contest: you are
either pro-husband or pro-wife.

At first pass, the idea of men anywhere in
India being abused by their wives seems paranoid. It does not help their
case when a prominent complaint on the SIFF website has to do with Levis
Ads, starring Sushmita Sen, which objectify semi-nude male models as
furniture. Or when they comment on the laws being "Made for Sitas, used by
Surpanakhas."

On November 19, SIFF was back at Jantar Mantar, trying to kick off a tradition of International Men's Day (a regrettable choice of date, as one member remarked, as it was also Indira Gandhi's birthday). Akhilesh Kumar, a Delhi University professor, held forth animatedly to the crowd, which included a few bemused foreign tourists: "Jo women's activists hain, wo shaadi-shuda nahin hain, ghar unka toota hua hai." They, he said, were like animal activists who secretly eat mutton in restaurants. Sarkar took the mike to predict a day when, like the polio drive, the NCW would go door-to-door to flush out husbands; then he led a rousing chorus of "Renuka Chaudhury Bharat Chhodo!" The foreign tourists took pictures to show to friends back home: of Indian men who oppose anti-dowry laws. They probably got a photo of Naveen, who had spoken the other day of tiredness, incomprehension, and pain—sounding, for all the world, like a battered woman.

If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles

Malecontents UniteIn your article Now, is that Malevolence? (Dec 3) you say, "They probably got a photo of Naveen, who had spoken the other day of tiredness, incomprehension, and pain—sounding, for all the world, like a battered woman." It’s an ironical lapse, journalistically, to use the idea of a battered woman as the benchmark when talking about battered men. When I read that, it makes me think your statement—"that the feminist agenda has pushed ahead so far that men are now the worst victims"—is correct. Why couldn’t Naveen just be allowed to sound, for all the world, like a "battered man"? Would any paper in the world dare make such a sexist comparison about a battered woman’s suffering?Ray Blumhorst, California

Kudos for an unbiased article. Men, their sisters and mothers face severe trauma at the hands of unscrupulous wives. How can any sane law provide for the immediate arrest of persons just on the basis of wives’ accusation, as Section 498A of the ipc does? The axis of evil which vitiates marriages comprises those Feminazis who are deprived of a happy married life. They want to create a society of women of their cadre. The law is mostly misused in such cases.R. Dash, on e-mail

Women, I think, possess a natural talent to be believed even when they lie. This, coupled with deliberately biased laws, make a deadly cocktail that’s hit Indian males with ferocity. There’s hardly anyone who doesn’t know someone who has been victimised. Divorce rates have increased due to the empowerment of women and increased awareness of maintenance laws. Divorce should be recognised by the judiciary as a consequence of a break-up in a relationship; it should not hold the husband alone responsible. And ‘maintenance’ should have no place in a modern equal-gender society. Section 498A is used by the richer classes for blackmail. This law is used routinely in Bihar and Kerala. ‘Feministvadi’ Renuka Chowdhury has used her law against her own son-in-law! The Opposition is strangely quiet, much like a battered man!G. Parthasarathy, Chennai

My own nephew and his parents are victims of abuse by his ex-wife who filed false allegations against them, after subjecting them to months of mental torture. The laws introduced to protect women are undoubtedly being misused and exploited by a new breed of women who want to destroy the lives of the boy and his relatives. What is forgotten is that the elderly mother-in-law or the sister-in-law are also women. The laws need to be given a thought.Shahida Hussain, Chennai

To me, this is one of the best articles I’ve read in Outlook. These guys are doing a great job of exposing the distorted propaganda of feminists.Sandeep Bhartia, Delhi

Recently, I read of an Australian woman coming all the way to India to use Indian law for a crime alleged to have happened in Australia. We should seriously consider outsourcing our law and legal system. It was also interesting to note the interpretation of "harassment" in the news item. So, in a hypothetical situation, if a husband flees from a cruel and sadistic wife, according to Indian law, he is "harassing" the wife and is liable for prosecution. In many cases where the wife and husband are living apart due to employment, visa issues, and other unavoidable reasons, the husband is deemed to be harassing the wife! Long live Indian law! Gope Lalwani, Pennsylvania

The moment I came to know of the enactment of the dowry act, I concluded that India would go the way the West did, where feminist movements destroyed scores of families. There were three divorces in my family, and in all of them, the girls were to blame. In one case , parents, who never asked for dowry, were framed. The time has come to remedy this situation. Nasar, Raleigh, US

Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.

1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.

2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.

To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.

Thanks and Regards,
Tony Joseph

18/D-52

Apr 12, 2008

12:18 AM

False cases are filed under Sec.498-A without any convictions by the wives? They are just let off, unless the Husband files for defamation against his spouse at the higher courts.Why are not wives jailed or punished for the abuse of Sec. The trauma after such false cases on the boy,his parents,sister,brother and sometimes even small child who is not spared is horrifying.Senior Citizens are jailed without any proofs.Even in Murder cases proofs are required to convict the guilty.Wives just want to settle their scores by asking Hugh amounts from the In-Laws,so that she can withdraw the case.Isn't such a demand of hers from his husband & In-Laws tantamount to a DOWRY? What a mockery of such a Section,which has been introduced for guarding her from the evils of dowry,is being used by her to extract money in such a way.Cases of Sec.498-A & D.V are filed by the wives(97%-98% are fakes)just to harass her husband & In-laws & majority of them leads to Separation/Divorces.India is the only Country in the World to have such Draconian Laws.India is the only Country in the World where there are plenty of laws for the women & sadly not a single law that protects a man.And finally India is the only country in the World where Husbands & his Parents are jailed without any Convictions/Proofs or Evidences whereas such a thing is mandatory for Murders and other criminal cases.In another decade,India will be the only Country in World where every household will have only women and we will be proud not because of Democracy but sadly Womancracy - To the Women, By the Women & For the Women.

New Delhi, Nov 30: There were 11,300 false cases registered under the Dowry Prohibition Act, Lok Sabha was told here on Friday.

The government, referring to the data collected by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), said the cases were declared false on account of mistake of fact or law.

However, the government has no information to indicate any misuse of the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Women and Child Development Minister Renuka Chowdhary said in a written reply.

The government has not received any report of misuse of the above acts from state commission for women in Orissa or any other state, the Lok Sabha was informed.

Guys, 498a is not women law, it is the vindictive barbarian law. there were 58,900 cases of 498a in 2005, 2007 figures will be double that...in each case there are old mothers, young sisters, some of them not even living with the vindictive wife....in some cases they are living 1000 miles away, still they have to take bail and run around in police stations and clumsy courts....so get over it, this law is not for woman empowerment...they are only for breaking familieis and wife empowerment...i wont even call a wife empowerment, sometime bhabhi of a groom is named as accused so wither the good wives...now let us talk econmics...each 498 case is 1 lakh in lawyer fees..bail, charge sheet , cases so it is 584 crore industry...what you say of coke and ambanis....Now let me tell you the procedure of bail in a murder...it is taken once and then over..this way or that way...take 498 a, the number of accused is 5-6 times the number of accused in a murder...so first a guys takes a notice bail...3 days stay on arrest..then the fir happens and police invariably turn up to his house on friday or before diwali, holi, new year, summer vacation...so all 5-6 members have to take bail again...after bail is granted then the husband goes to police station and gives the security etc..now after one two years chargeshhet is filed, so then the bail is taken again and these judges, they refuse bail even if wife falsely says my 2000 rupee garments are there..and the bail proceedings for husband tag for almost one or two year in courts....so the courts are crippled..and so are almost 10-20 lakh innocent people...and bail is routinely granted by email to tada accused...great indian barbarianism and i wont wake up till my own house is bombed....jago india jago

We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism

But:

1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.

2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads

3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site

4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.

5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT

6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.

7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.

8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.

9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:

a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you